Bhagawad Gita - Ch2. Verses 11 [Adi Shankara]

[Guest guest]

[The following Sri Warriar's translation text is typed by Sri Shankar]

 

Aadhi Aacharyaa's commentary on the Samkhya Yoga from the 11th verse

 

11.0.a. The text beginning from "Seeing the army of the Pandavas"

(Bhagavad Gita 1.2)

and ending with "Telling with 'I shall not fight', he remained silent"

(Bhagavad Gita 2.9)---must be explained as designed to elucidate the origin

of flaws like grief and delusion, which form the defects constituting the

seed of the transmigratory life of all living beings. This may be explained

as follows: In regard to the kingdom, teachers. Descendants, allies,

friends. kinsmen, and relatives, both remote and intimate, Arjuna displayed

his grief and delusion, born of the fear of a breakdown of his affection.

This affection itself was a product of the illusory cognitions, "I belong to

them" and " they are mine". Vide: "How shall I (oppose) Bhisma in battle?"

(Bhagavad Gita 2.4) etc. It was because his discrimination and practical

knowledge were undermined by grief and delusion that Arjuna refrained from

fighting, though he had voluntarily undertaken to fight his opponents as the

duty of the Kshatriya, and instead got ready to live a mendicant's life,

conforming to an alien law of life (paradharma). Thus all living beings,

whose minds are gripped by defects like grief and delusion, might readily

forsake the law (of their life) and embrace forbidden courses of action.

Even when they live according to the proper law of their life (svadharma),

the activities of their speech, mind and body are surely impelled by their

desire for the fruits of those activities, which emanate from egoism. In

these circumstances, owing to an accumulation of righteousness and

unrighteousness, transmigratory life continues unabated. Therefore, the

seeds of the transmigratory life are grief and delusion. They can be

exhausted only by the knowledge of the Self, preceded by the renunciation of

all activities, and not by any other means. Therefore, in order to impart

that knowledge for the welfare of the entire world, Lord Krsna says, making

Arjuna but an occasion for it: "Those for whom one should not grieve"

(Bhagavad Gita 2.11).

 

11.0.b. In regard to this matter, some argue as follows:

Objection: Aloneness (kaivalyam) is surely not won by mere adherence to

unaided Self-knowledge preceded by the renunciation of activities; on the

contrary, the indubitable sense of the entire Bhagavad Gita is that

aloneness has to be won by means of knowledge combined with the system

activities like the fire-sacrifice (agnihotra) ordained by Sruti and Smrti.

They also point out the following passages that indicate this sense of the

Bhagavad Gita: "On the other hand, if you do not wage this righteous war"

(Bhagavad Gita 2.33);

"To perform action alone you have the obligation" (Bhagavad Gita 2.47);

"Therefore, perform action alone" (Bhagavad Gita 4.15) and so forth. It

need not be apprehended that Veda-enjoined actions entailing infliction of

pain and so forth will promote unrighteousness. Why not? War, the activity

of the Ksatriya entailing the slaughter of even one's teachers, brothers,

children etc., though cruel in the extreme, will neverthelss not make for

unrighteousness, because it is the proper law of a Ksatriya's life. On the

other hand, it is declared that by refusing to fight 'sacrificing both the

law of your life and your reputation, you will incur sin" (Bhagavad Gita

2.33). Therefore, making these affirmations, the Lord emphatically asserts

that the Veda-oriented, life-long activities, though they entail the

slaughter of animals and so forth, cannot conceivably be sinful; for they

are obligatory in their nature.

 

11.0.c. Reply: All that has been said above is vacuous. For, the

discipline of knowledge and that of action, rooted in two kinds of

understanding, have been clearly distinguished from each other. The content

of the text beginning from-"Those who should not be grieved for" (Bhagavad

Gita 2.11) and ending with "And in view of the law of one's life" (Bhagavad

Gita 2.31), where the Lord elucidates the eternal truth of the Self-is the

Samkhya. Thsi teaches that the Self, being free from teh six-fold

transformation like birth and so on, is a non-agent. This knowledge,

generated by the study of the relevant context (prakarana), is the Samkhya

knowledge. Those for whom this knowledge is appropriate are the Samkhyas.

Prior to the birth of this knowledge is the state of Yoga characterised by

the performance of activities instrumental to liberation. Such performance

is based on the discrimination between righteousness and unrighteousness; it

depends on the notion that the Self is other than the body, etc., and is an

agent of actions, a reaper of the fruits thereof and so forth. This kind

of knowledge is the Yoga-knowledge. Those for whom it is appropriate are

the Yogins. Accordingly, the Lord has made a clear distinction between

these two kinds of knoweldge-the knowledge of the Samkhyas rooted in the

understanding of the Samkhya, and that of the Yogins rooted in the

understanding of the Yoga. Thus realising the incompatibility, at one and

the same time in one and the same person, of Jnana (knoweldge) and Karma

(action), and also with due regard to the understanding of Samkhya and Yoga,

the Lord has discriminated between the two disciplines. The incompatiblity

(above referred to) is due to the fact that knowledge and action are rooted

respectively in the notions of the non-agency and the agency of the Self,

and in the perception of unity and plurality in the world.

 

 

11.0.d. This delcaration of distinction between knowldege and action in the

Bhagavad Gita corresponds to the following demonstration of the same in the

Satapathabrahmana: " Desiring only this world of the Self, mendicant

brahmanas wander forth." Here, having laid down the renunciation of all

actions, to it has been affiliated the idea contained in the following

passage: "Of what profit is progeny to us, who have this Self, this world?"

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22). In the very same text has also been

highlighted the fact that all actions pertian only to those whoa re subject

to nescience and desire; for, before marriage the human self is

'unregenerate' (prakrta). After an investigation into the science of

Veda-enjoined actions, man, becoming 'regenerate', desired (akamayata) the

means to secure the three worlds viz., a son and the two-fold wealth, human

and divine. The 'human wealth' consists in activities by which the world of

the manes is attained. The 'divine wealth' is knowledge by which the world

of the gods is attained. The transcending of the sphere of all activities

and the pursuit of a life of mendicancy have been laid down for one who

seeks only the world of the Self and who is rid of all cravings. Now this

pronouncement on the distinction between knowledge and action will be

illogical, if the Lord had intended to combine the Vedic activities and the

Knowledge of the Self.

 

11.0.e. Nor in that case could Arjuna's question-"If, according to You,

knowledge is superior to action etc...?" (Bhagavad Gita 3.1.)-be logical.

How could Arjuna super-impose on the Lord, falsely, what He has never so far

affirmed, viz., the impossibility of combining knowledge and action? Again,

how could he ascribe to Him what He had never clearly stated viz, the

superiority of knowledge to action? The fact that Arjuna ascribes both

these views to the Lrod shows that he ahd understood the Lord as affirming

both.

 

11.0.f. Again, if the combination of knowledge and action had been

universally laid down, it would of course have been applicable to Arjuna

also. How then, when both were taught, could he make a request regarding

only one of the two, in the words, "Tell me, for certain, that which one of

these two, is superior to the other" (Bhagavad Gita 5.1) ? When, for

instance, a doctor has prescribed a diet, which is both sweet and cooling,

for a patient suffering from biliousness, the patient's request, "Please

tell which of these two will cure my malady", is clearly impossible.

Even if Arjuna's query is supposed to be due to his inability to grasp the

distinction stated by the Lord, the latter should have given the reply like

this suited to that query: "I bade you to combine knowledge and action. Why

are you confused in regard to it?" It is not proper for Him to have given

an unsuitable reply, unrelated to the query, in the words "Of old, tow

disciplines were laid down by Me" (Bhagavad Gita 3.3).

 

11.0.g. Nor is the distinction in its totality reasonable if the

combination proposed related only to knowledge and action enjoined by

Smritis. Besides, knowing as he did that fighting is the law of the

Ksatriyas according to the Smritis, Arjuna's complaint, "Why do you bid me

to plunge into this dreadful action?" is not in order.

 

11.0.h. Therefore, none can possibly demonstrate that in the science of

the Gita there is the slightest proposal to combine knowledge of the Self

with action laid down by Sruti or Smriti.

Thanks and kind regards

 

 

11.0.i. On the other hand, when either due to nescience or flaws like

attachment, a person proceeds to act and his mind is in the course purified

by means of sacrificial rites, the giving of gifts, austerities, etc., then

the knowledge of the Supreme Truth dawns. The content of that knowledge is

'All this world is the one Brahman, a non-agent.' For him both activity and

its goal cease to operate. Still, for the well being of the world, the

Brahman-knower may be observed to persist in his activity, purposefully, as

of old. The form of activity observed in his case is not real action with

which Self-Knowledge (buddhi) can be combined. An instance is the

warrior-like activity of the Divine Krsna. This is not action combined with

Self-knowledge for winning the summum bonum. The same is the case with any

Knower of the Self,as he, like the Lord Hismelf, is free from the egoistic

sense and the desire for the fruits of activities. On the contrary, the

knower of the Truth, of the Self maintains: " I act not"; and he does not

seek the fruits of his actions. His position is similar to what happens to

a househodler who commences the fire-sacrifice for winning the desired

objects, namely heaven adn thelike, but who, after going through half of the

rite, ceases to desire them and yet carries the ceremony through. Now, of

course, the sacrificial rite ceases to be desire-prompted. Accordingly does

the Lord, in different contexts, affirm: "Thouhg working, the agent is not

stained" (Bhagavad Gita 5.7), "He neither works nor gets stained (Bhagavad

Gita 13.31) etc. As for utterances such as the following: "As your

progenitors performed of old" (Bhagavad Gita 4.15), "Janaka and others

achieved perfection by means of action alone" (Bhagavad Gita 3.20)-these

have to distinguished adn grasped. How? If, at the outset, it is held that

enlightened people like Janaka performed action in bygone days, they did so,

aiming at perfection and to promote the world's well-being; for they knew

that "Gunas operate in the Gunas" (Bhagavad Gita 3.28). That is, it was

appropriate for them to renounce all action; nevertheless, they sought that

perfection through the medium of action; they did not renounce action. Such

is the import of this passage. On the other hand, if it is held that they

were not enlightened, the passage may be explained to mean that Janaka and

others like achieved samsiddhi, purity of mind, by means actions dedicated

to God; or samsiddhi, here denotes the dawn of Self-Knowledge. The same

idea will be conveyed by the Lord in the following words: "They act to

purify the mind" (Bhagavad Gita 5.11). Having stated, "Worshipping Him by

means of his own actions, man achieves siddhi or pre-eminence, He prescribes

the discipline of knowledge or Jnananistha saying, "The way that the

pre-eminent one attains Brahman" and so on (Bhagavad Gita 18.50).

Therefore, according to the science of the Gita , the attainment of

Liberation is by means of unaided knowledge of Truth alone. This is the

indubitable doctrine. That this is the (the right) doctrine, we shall

demonstrate with reference to the various contexts of the Bhagavad Gita.

 

11.0.g. Convinced that the redemption of Arjuna, whose mind was confused

in regard to the law of righteousness, swayed by nescience, adn sunk in a

vast sea of sorrow, is impossible except through the knowledge of the Self,

Lord Krsna, seeking to save him, introduces him to the theme of

Self-Knowledge.

 

Samkhya Yoga, Verse 11:

The blessed Lord said:

11. You grieve for those who call for no grief; at the same time, you

utter words of wisdom. The wise grieve neither for the dead nor for the

living.

 

11.1 Not meriting grief (asocyan) are Bhisma, Drona, etc; for, their

conduct is virtuous. from the point of view of transcendental Truth, they

are eternal. For them, who call for no grief, you have grieved, thinking,

"They will die on account of me; what shall I, deprived of them, do with

the happiness that the possession of kingdom etc., will bring me?" And at

the same time, you utter words befitting the wise-those who have wisdom

(prajna) or intellect. Thsu at once combining an air of wisdom with

misplaced grief, you display in yourself, like one demented, confusion and

wisdom that are mutually contradictory. This is the idea of the Lord. For,

both for those whose vital airs have departed (the dead), and for those

whose vital airs have not (the living), the knowers of the Self (atmajnah),

do not grieve. Panda is the Knoweldge of the Self. Those who have it are

panditah. Vide the sruti: "Securing the status of Self-knowers"

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.5.1). Transcendentally speaking, you grieve for

those who are eternal, and, as such, do not call for grief. Therefore you

are demented. This is the Lord's idea.